Reading about Roman history

Why was Domitian considered a bad emperor?

If there was any chance to reform the Republic, the Empire was a colossal mistake. Would have been much better to try to reform the Republic, rather than create a system based on single personalities vulnerable to assassination.

He wasn't an emperor.

even contemporaries saw through that ruse

He wasn't his brother Titus

He fucked the senate, and the senate writes history.

Centralizing power and not sucking the vestigial senates dick.

>Trajan
>Marcus Aurelius

Overrated. Good, but very overrated.

>Vespasian
Underrated but not exactly as great as Augustus. Still one of my favorites desu

>Constantine

No. The guy who created the religious divide in the Roman empire is not to be praised. Ever since Rome adopted Christianity the whole empire went to shit.

>Justinian and Basil II

Greeks.

Famalam, Trajan and Augustus are certainly the best. The way that Augustus reunited the Republic, annexed Egypt, Hispania and other regions all while making peace with the Parthians after they annihilated Crassus and Mark Antony makes him God-tier, only to rivaled by Trajan who brought the Empire to it's apex of power.

...

>i will post this picture of some edgy teen with a sword, that will certainly debunk his argument and prove how his facts are wrong xDDDDDD

I don't even need to ask why you posted it, you got triggered at the mention of Christianity making the Roman Empire go to shit. Like what the fuck was Constantine thinking? The majority of the Empire was still pagan, yet he instantly converts to Christianity and starts pillaging and looting temples while persecuting pagans. Way to divide the empire faggot, no wonder it went to shit so quickly

Christians got so triggered at everything that they quasi-destroyed all of Roman culture. They couldn't even handle the basic shit like gladiator fights and kept whining until it got banned. Rome was rotting from the inside, everybody knew why but nobody dared to do anything about it.

Back with the ol 31 huh

courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME 250/210 Reasons.htm

>Constantine
>Justinian

What a truly plebeian opinion. Diocletian was the best emperor Rome ever had, period.

Traditional Roman Religion had been on the decline for like a century before Constantine, the introduction of the mystery cults and the Crisis of the Third Century had completely changed everything. Christianity was a vital shot in the arm for an empire whose ideology had been declining

It was special with Constantine. Even though Rome nearly collapsed shortly before the rule of Constantine, him alienating most of the Roman population did not help Rome recover from the Crisis of the Third Century.

It was under a devout Christian Emperor that Rome was sacked for the first time in 800 years, the same guy that banned gladiator fighting by the way, because muh religion.

The one and only contribution I can think of that Christianity to the Empire made was the Pope Leo I convincing Attila not to sack Rome, but it was useless because Rome got destroyed shortly after.

you realize the empire was already divided surely?

The Dominate was at the height of its power during the Constantinian dynasty.

Augustus started it all and triggered the Pax Romana. It's hard to underestimate his skill as a leader. He took power at a time when things were absolute chaos and fashioned it into a stable, prosperous Roman state that lasted for 2 centuries. It would resonate for another 1,000 years in Byzantium.

Yes, if anything, the cohesiveness of faith in the growing Christianity was a damned roll of duct tape to a tearing empire

Not to mention that Christianity fit the ideology of the Dominate far better than a vaguely defined ritualistic religion

Yes, traditional Roman paganism was on the decline, that's true, but remember, going against it was tantamount to treason due to the Imperial Cult, because paganism solidified the power of the Emperor. Then Constantine adopts Christianity and wages war on pagans that probably only believed in paganism in order to not break the Imperial Cult and their pledge of allegiance to the Emperor. It was a very confusing situation overall, clearly even you can agree that Constantine pillaging and tearing down temples of the Empire was not very beneficial, and his son legalizing persecution of paganism even worse. Later emperors had to undo what Constantine did by bringing back paganism, which was undone by even later emperors. It was a huge clusterfuck and Roman identity was fading away.

The Dominate was a shit-period anyway, being at the height of a shit period doesn't make you very special.

only one emperor fought the new religion, you know well his final words

>It was a very confusing situation overall,
No it wasn't you brainlet
And you completely exaggerate the persecution of pagans under Constantine
>It was a huge clusterfuck and Roman identity was fading away.
the identity of the Romans continued literally until the final sack of Constantinople in 1453, you clearly don't know what you're talking about
>The Dominate was a shit-period anyway
yeah you're definitely a brainlet

This. Augustus created such a well tuned bureaucratic machine that it basically ran itself despite several rough patches for almost 300 years.

It's unknown whether he actually did say "i found rome a city of brick, i leave it a city of marble" but it's not far off.

>Greeks, speaking greek in a greek City following greek rotes while ignoring the latin Rome
>Roman
Are byzanshits the original we wuz faggots, or is that a greek thing in General?

>literally the same state structure that had governed the Empire for centuries
>not Rome
????

>Implying the last 100 years of the Republic weren't a series of (failed) attempted reforms

>If we copy them then we wuz Emprahs n' shiet
Take your pop-history back to faggit

>Romans spoke Greek, Claudius literally refers to "our two languages" Meditations was written in fucking Greek
>Romans built Constantinople
>Romans split the empire into two halves
>Western half falls, Eastern half continues
>B-but it was different, but m-muh rome

The roman empire was completely different in 400 than what it was in 100. Hell even the Western empire hardly cared about Rome anymore. Ravenna and Milan were far more important and Constantinople was wealthier and more prestigious.

They didn't copy them, the ERE was literally the same state that had its foundations in Augustus.

>WE WUZ

Also
>Constantin bring Roman
Is this some sort oft post-ironic shitpost?

>Copy

But it wasn't copying you fucking moron it was the exact same administration using the same codified laws and ruling over the same lands.

If you have a stick and break it in half then throw one half away, it doesn't change the fact that the half you still have was from the same whole.

>when you're literally so stupid you can't even communicate

>Lets remake the empire in the East LMFAO
>It's not a Copy
Male up your mind

>remake
When did this happen?

>If you break a stick in two you get two sticks
>If you break the empire in half you get to WE WUZ
>Greek science

Constantine didn't "create" the religious divide, Christianity is divisive enough on its own and the divide was already there, he just picked a side and the empire happened to be going that way anyway. He didn't convert until his deathbed because he wanted to make sure christianity would actually stick, because if pagans came back in power they wouldn't write well of him and he considered that. He made an educated guess, bid on the horse out front, and ended up making the right choice for his own legacy. Romans were becoming Christians and churches were garnering their own independent influence for a very long time before Constantine was ever born.

>Augustus
>Emperor

I'm saving this post to use against buttmad anti-Christ's

You're literally this meme

Go to some Africa thread if you have a need to post we wuz shit.

no roman "emperor" was ever emperor by your awful semantics argument. Everyone knows that "emperor" is a later term we use to describe roman rulers in the English language so that modern people can understand that he has absolute power over an empire even if he doesn't technically call himself emperor. "emperor" means ruler of an empire, and that's what Augustus and all of his descendents were, it's obviously not a contemporary term but you're not smart or insightful for pointing that out.

>Implying Basil II wasn't a Macedonian whose grandfather was Georgian

Is Augustus the first and only ruler in history to approach the skillset of God-Emperor?

t.gibbon
Constantine didn't create the divide in the empire, it was already on going.
Trajan was shit and over-extended the empire. He's only liked because 'muh conquest'. Hadrian was far better then him

he was such a good ruler that he specifically told them not to make him a god and they did it anyway after his death.

And you're literally this

Constantine didn't adopt Christianity till his death bed

Augustus>all of those

Wasn't Augustus pretty frail and constsntly sick? How did such a character forge a successful, stable empire? What made him so good?

You may want to know more about Christianity before you say stupid shit like this.

Judaizing is a heresy, that even Saint Paul in the New Testament calls horse shit.

Honestly it makes me sad the amount of bullshit you've been told if you actually believe we hold Jews as the chosen people, or anything from the maymay you sent me. I'd rather you be ignorant on accident, rather than purposfully though. I'll pay you the compliment of accident.

He wuz smart and shiet. And had the name of caesar.

As much as I'd like to go for my homeboy Augustus like OP, I have to agree with you there. He was tip-top.

Carthage must be destroyed.

>seriously responding to a meme on the internet

Holy shit how much of a fucking cringe lord can you be

Agrippa carried his useless ass .

Augustus was a nice guy, that's true

Why does Chinese popular history celebrate the Three Kingdoms Period as a time of epic struggles between rival states for control and great deeds by great men like Zhuge Liang and Cao Cao, while European popular history barely remembers the Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire and people like Aurelian, Odenathus, Zenobia and Diocletian?

Because Chinks had a blockbuster epic novel written about it while west had one about elves and goblins.

changes in the chinese vernacular language (different pronunciations word usage) don't change the actual language, so it's easier for scholars and students to pay attention to their literary tradition. We'd celebrate more roman history if we all could read latin, but sadly it's not taught as much anymore.

IMO the Shakespearean plays Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra did for the history of the fall of the Republic in the Western mind what the ROTK did for the Three Kingdoms period in the Chinese mind.

Carthage did literally nothing wrong.

kek at that autocorrect

So a Latin-speaking Thracian and a Macedonian of Georgian and Italian descent are "Greeks"

Really makes me think